Ralph Janke wrote, On 07/27/2010 12:32 PM:
> I am not sure what the resistance against javascript in general is.
Because it is a hidden black box that history has demonstrated can
have nefarious elements. 'Nefarious' meaning different things to
different people. (See Khalid's note.)
So, everything gets painted with the same brush.
If it were only code in a downloaded program, like a program, it would
come up, every page, with a disclaimer and user agreement along the
lines of "Do you trust us that this page does nothing deleterious,
yada, yada, yada." Most times, people would say no, but they don't
have that option. Or, at least, not reasonably.
And if you don't agree, you usually don't get the value for which you
went to the page in the first place. (Thus Khalid's graceful
degradation comment.)
This is all compounded by search, wherein the only reason you go to a
page is by way of a search result, only to find looking at the result
it does not have what you are looking for, and since it doesn't you
wouldn't otherwise have gone there, let alone agreed to the potential
for nefariousness that you agreed to just in case the non-degraded
content actually has what you were looking for.
FUD. And history shows that the I.T. receiving public isn't wrong to
hold that view.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you're wrong. And people
can't tell which sites they're not wrong about, beforehand.